IADR Abstract Archives
Comparative Analysis of Full-Arch Abutment-Level Implant Impressions.
Objectives: To compare the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions of BioHorizons Titanium scan bodies with that of Elos Accurate scan bodies.
Methods: A reference mandibular model was used to place 4 implants (Tapered Internal Plus Dental Implant, BioHorizons) and multi-unit abutments were inserted into the implants and torqued to 30 N/Cm. Specimens were divided into different groups according to the impression technique used:
Group Control 1: Intraoral scan bodies (Elos Accurate multi-unit scan body) were placed on each implant abutment. The model was scanned (inEos X5, DentsplySirona) and an .STL file was obtained.
Group Control 2: Intraoral scan bodies (Titanium Scan Body, BioHorizons) were placed on each implant abutment. The model was scanned (inEos X5, DentsplySirona) and an .STL file was obtained.
Group 1: Intraoral scan bodies (Elos Accurate multi-unit scan body) were placed on each implant abutment. Five intraoral scans (Primescan, DentsplySirona) were made at the abutment level and exported as .STL files.
Group 2: Intraoral scan bodies (Titanium Scan Body, BioHorizons) were placed on each implant abutment replica. Five intraoral scans (Primescan, DentsplySirona) were made at the abutment level and exported as .STL files.
For all groups, the digital impression’s .STL files were exported to Geomagic, 3D Systems. The models from the different scan bodies were superimposed with the .STL file of their respective control. The RMS values were calculated and analyzed with a one-way ANOVA analysis and Tukey’s Honest Significant difference test.
Results: The BioHorizons Titanium scan body group showed a lower RMS value (0.0028134) than the Elos Accurate scan body group (0.0053362). There was no significant difference found in the RMS values from the different scan bodies (P>0.05).
Conclusions: Digital impressions using Elos Accurate multi-unit scan bodies seem to be as accurate as that of BioHorizons Titanium scan bodies. The differences in the scan bodies’ length and geometry may have led to an inaccurate comparison.
Methods: A reference mandibular model was used to place 4 implants (Tapered Internal Plus Dental Implant, BioHorizons) and multi-unit abutments were inserted into the implants and torqued to 30 N/Cm. Specimens were divided into different groups according to the impression technique used:
Group Control 1: Intraoral scan bodies (Elos Accurate multi-unit scan body) were placed on each implant abutment. The model was scanned (inEos X5, DentsplySirona) and an .STL file was obtained.
Group Control 2: Intraoral scan bodies (Titanium Scan Body, BioHorizons) were placed on each implant abutment. The model was scanned (inEos X5, DentsplySirona) and an .STL file was obtained.
Group 1: Intraoral scan bodies (Elos Accurate multi-unit scan body) were placed on each implant abutment. Five intraoral scans (Primescan, DentsplySirona) were made at the abutment level and exported as .STL files.
Group 2: Intraoral scan bodies (Titanium Scan Body, BioHorizons) were placed on each implant abutment replica. Five intraoral scans (Primescan, DentsplySirona) were made at the abutment level and exported as .STL files.
For all groups, the digital impression’s .STL files were exported to Geomagic, 3D Systems. The models from the different scan bodies were superimposed with the .STL file of their respective control. The RMS values were calculated and analyzed with a one-way ANOVA analysis and Tukey’s Honest Significant difference test.
Results: The BioHorizons Titanium scan body group showed a lower RMS value (0.0028134) than the Elos Accurate scan body group (0.0053362). There was no significant difference found in the RMS values from the different scan bodies (P>0.05).
Conclusions: Digital impressions using Elos Accurate multi-unit scan bodies seem to be as accurate as that of BioHorizons Titanium scan bodies. The differences in the scan bodies’ length and geometry may have led to an inaccurate comparison.
IMAGES
3999910_File000002.jpg
3999910_File000003.jpg
3999910_File000002.jpg
3999910_File000003.jpg